If a democrat is elected as president do you honestly think there will be no war at all?

Question

Ok maybe if Bill was back in office, since he did nothing.

Al Cracka - I guess you are saying that the first attack on the world trade center and the SS Cole were pointless also? God help us if they all think like you.

Answer 1

Nope

Answer 2

Actually Bill did some war. He fired so many cruise missiles into Irag the navy ran out of the ones with conventional war heads and had to re-task the nukes. The Iraqi children who experienced that are known as insurgents today. He did some damage in the Balkans from 35,000 feet, and then there is Black Hawk down in Somalia.

Other noteworthy Democrats:
Wilson WWI
FDR WWII
Truman: Nuclear strike in WWII. Korean War.
Kennedy: Cuba and Vietnam
Johnson: Allowed Viet Nam to be the longest war in our history.
Carter: Allowed Iran to be home to the Islamic Revolution and stood by and did nothing during the Soviet assimilation of Afghanistan, both precursors to the war today. Formed RDF (Readiness Deployment Force now Centcom). You remember how well that worked out in the hostage crisis. Handed over the Panama Canal to Manuel Noriega, you know what happend next.

So the Democrats are no insulation to war. More likely a bait and switch.

Answer 3

I think the debates and the candidates positions have demonstrated that maybe, just maybe, we will commit ourselves militarily in intelligent ways. Obama's statement of sending troops into Pakistan has already shown results with Perez actually cracking down in the region. I hope that maybe all the candidates will sit down for one night and think about what exactly would be the reason they would deploy troops: the democrats at least show some reasonableness in rethinking the current mindset that has failed America. The Republicans have shown no interest in thinking differently about U.S. troop engagements: particularly Romney who has made the most naive statement about foreign policy that I've heard since Carter.

Anyway, it is time to rethink military involvement. We should not push toward imperial invasions or pure pacifism: but instead some rethinking of the issue. Democrats have at least shown some willingness to engage in this rethinking, the Republican candidates have not.

Answer 4

This unconstitutional, illegal, unjustifiable, immoral 'war' was 'declared' against another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States for three really 'lame' reasons:
1. The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein ever since the days of Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was ridiculed, criticized and humiliated for not 'finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time;
2. Cheney covets all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so that he and his Exxon-Mobil buddies can get richer and richer and richer feeding America's addiction to gasoline-powered Hummers and SUVs;
3. Ever since World War Ii, the giant U.S. military-industrial complex recognized how profitable 'war' could be. So, all the politicians were bought up, pricey lobbyists were hired, and special interest groups were formed to promote and encourage more 'war'. Thus, we were embroiled in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Cold War; Vietnam and Desert Storm - all so that corporations like McDonnell-Douglass, Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky could make fabulous, unrestricted profits. A 'new war' was necessary to bring two 'newcomers' to the government's 'war' trough: the Carlyle Group and Halliburton, both of whom have direct ties to the Bush-Cheney White House!

Democrats will be unable to do anything more than a token troop withdrawal. The U.S.A. is committed to staying in Iraq for decades, if not generations - until we've sucked all that OIL from its sands. Why else would we be building the largest embassy in the world on a 104-acre site in downtown Baghdad overlooking the 'new' Iraqi puppet government installed by the Bush administration? Why else would Halliburton be building fourteen (yes - 14) new, permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq??
We'll be in Iraq for as long as we've been in Korea, Japan or Germany. To protect the U.S.A.'s "interests" (interpret that to mean, "Why is all OUR oil under all THEIR sand?")
The Democrats will win the White House in 2008, but will be impotent when it comes to ending this evil 'war'. You'll see a mediocre attempt to win any elections in 2008 on the part of Republicans; they know the worst economic depression in U.S. history will hit shortly after Bush leaves office. It's in their best interests to 'lay low', let the Dems take the blame, and come back strong in 2012. -RKO- 08/10/07

Answer 5

No I think there will be a war. Well let me restate that there has been a war with the Islamic fascists but we just never acknowledged it till 9-11, it had been going on since the 70's. My fear is some of the democrats would take us back to before 9-11 and try to run thing like we were never attacked or worse as some have stated act like we need to give in to the terrorists since its only due to our actions that they hate and kill us.

Answer 6

Actually one possibility could be that we will all become wards of the state and look to the state as the ultimate being. I think no matter democrat or republican, the government will grow. If government grows this is force applied to the people however small or big. If there is aggression than there is war. In short, war on the people will continue.

Answer 7

I don't think so. This is the first time I've heard (seen?) the idea expressed. I'd dearly love to see the end of warfare in my lifetime. I'm tired of seeing corporate greed disguised as a noble cause or national security. I'm not idealistic or naive enough though to expect it. I'd be happy enough if I could see humans starting to edge away from the concept of war and toward rationality and cooperation. Of course, all business and political leaders (including arms dealers) of all nations and parties would have to agree that an end to war is desirable. Don't hold your breath right?

Answer 8

I think if a Democrat is elected to the presidency the present war will still be going on. You don't have to worry about them starting one.

It will probably take several years for who ever gets into office to stop what is going on in Iraq because there would have to a complete reversal of the policy being used now.

I'm afraid for who ever gets into office because I think they will be blamed for another lost cause. Folks will forget that Lil' Bush is the one that should shoulder the entire blame.

Answer 9

Of course not. It's not war that Dems are protesting against, it's THIS war.

Dems want to go after the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and don't believe this Iraq was is about terrorism at all.

And you can't blame Dems for being skeptical as the reasons for invasion have changed several times (first WMD's, then the link to 9/11, then to spread democracy and rid the world of an evil dictator).

And we had military action when Clinton was in office (not to mention a booming economy, 20 million new jobs and a budget surplus).

Did you really want a serious answer to your question or just hear from people that have the same slant? It might have been a lot easier just to say, "We're right and Dems are wrong. Don't bother posting unless you agree."

Answer 10

libs do not want a dose of reality. Somalia was done at Clinton's behest and he was probably just doing what that sweet wife told him to do. I don't blame him for Monica, if I was married to Hillary I'd turn gay, and even fat chicks would start to look good. North Korea, he handed them a fat check and said don't do no nukes, they spent the money like a kid with his allowance and now are back in Washington asking for more money.
It's pretty disturbing when half the population of our country is sitting around and whining all day about the utopia we'd have under dem rule. Libs would spout all day about Bush it doesn't matter what he does. he could cure cancer and talk to aliens and find out how to convert air into fuel and they'd still hate him. He could cool the planet down to perfection and they'd hate him. He could reinvent the internet and they'd hate him. He could have fake sex in the oval office and they'd hate him. He could be submarine commander like Teddy kennedy and they'd want him buried alive.
Such perfect sense. Drooling all the while.

Answer 11

I don't think it matters who is elected, WE are AMERICA and WE ALL WANT THE SAME **peace in our country and have our families and love ones safe**. Why can't we focus on that? instead we are pointing fingers at the mistakes that were made. The past is past and no one can change it, FOCUS people we need to be together in this; the world has to see AMERICA AS A UNITED COUNTRY and not fighting over what is or was LET'S FIX IT.
TOGETHER we can do it, THE PRESIDENT who ever it is WORKS FOR US, our taxes pay for his airplane and clothes and meals. He/she (future president) should earn his money just like the rest of us do. No matter what they promise if in the end they don't deliver, we (together) have the power to hand them the pink slip.